What horse racing needs is a supremo.

​I am not a fan of the B.H.A. and I make no apologies for my view. The B.H.A. is a reactive organisation, lacking dynamism and imagination. For a sport to thrive, indeed any business, it requires leadership that constantly thinks ahead, recognises the signs of trouble ahead and has plans A.B & C prepared to tackle whatever the crisis might be. I do not see such leadership at the B.H.A. 
That said, the proposal of the Racecourse Association and the Horseman’s Group to usurp the B.H.A.’s authority and strip from it all commercial and non-regulatory decisions will only weaken the sport long-term, even if short-term some good may come of it.
At the moment horse racing is effectively governed by what is referred to as a Tripartite Agreement comprising the Racecourse Association, the Horseman’s Group and the B.H.A. This agreement was ill-conceived from the outset, especially when all three have to agree before any decision can be taken. A tripartite arrangement can only be effective if a majority vote is required for any decision to be taken. This is why stalemate will always be the favourite when important matters are up for debate.
My fear is if this radical proposal is accepted it will in effect allow ARC, Arena Racing Company, to become not only the sport’s commercial arm of the sport but its voice and strategy maker, with their racecourses, possibly, getting preferential treatment. The sport badly needs a strong arm at the tiller but it has to be someone with no allegiance to any aspect of the sport except the health and future of the sport itself. What other major sport (and industry) is ruled over by three individual groups, two of which has definite bias toward the decision-making process. In time who is to say that the power the Racecourse Association and the Horseman’s Group will acquire by ousting the B.H.A. from racing’s commercial interests allows them to have greater influence, if not complete control, of racing’s rules and regulations.
My criticism of the B.H.A. is that it is weakened by having at its head people with little knowledge of the sport of racing or the industry that employs so many people. You cannot bring in an ex-head of another sport and expect them to grasp the intricacies of horse racing within the time-span of their contract. I am sure they are dedicated people, wishing to be seen to be doing a fine job. But they will not be staying in the sport much beyond their present contract. They just don’t.
This sport needs a leader, a supremo, someone who listens to all opinions on any given subject, researches further and using his or her knowledge of the sport makes a decision that best serves all divisions. The B.H.A., the Jockey Club before it, no doubt, and everyone who presently has clout within the sport, have allowed the sport to drift on to a sandbank of economic indifference. How long has the B.H.A. governed this sport, and the B.H.B. before it? 30-years, is it? And where is the sport today? To say it is no better off than when the Jockey Club lost control of the sport is to gild it with flattery.
It is agreed by virtually everyone that there is too much racing yet under pressure from the Racecourse Association the B.H.A. continues to expand the race programme. The Betting Industry criticises small fields as they fail to generate interest and revenue from punters and yet even though the B.H.A. relies on what little the bookmakers give to the sport it is given short shrift. If there was less racing, the good ground prominent at the moment would not be producing so many races with three, four or five-runners.
The Tripartite Agreement, if it was ever viable, should have produced a funding stream for the sport by now. But it hasn’t. Horse Racing’s biggest and most desperate problem remains unresolved.
Horse Racing needs a strong supremo with a deep understanding and love of the sport who will kick asses, poke the hornet’s nest and wrestle the sport’s funding problem until he or she has rendered the problem a long-dead chapter of its past.
What I will give the Racecourse Association and the Horseman’s Group credit for is that they have at least poked the hornet’s nest and displayed the dynamism sadly lacking from Portman Square. Their answer to the debate is not long-lasting answer desperately required but the debate that is now to ensue will, I hope, be conducted in broad daylight and in the public arena.